EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Looking for the "ONE SKI." Really? Why?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Looking for the "ONE SKI." Really? Why? - Page 2

post #31 of 57
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRPufnStf View Post

I've got "the one" ski for those typical mixed resort days.  They are probably the right choice 6 out of 10 days, and definitely what I would bring on a trip that involved air travel.

 

Two out of 10 days are best enjoyed on the carving skis, and 2 out of ten are best on the fatties.

 

Do I need those two additional pair?  Of course not.

 

Do they add to the enjoyment of one of my greatest passions?  Absolutely!

 

Enough said.


A buddy said I should buy my next ski for the terrain I want to ski. Here in the PNW, skis seem to range from 70 mm on the groomers to 130 mm in the POW. Mathematically, the one, "most-of-the mountain, most-of-the-time" ski would fall between 90 and 110 mm under foot. I know this may seem like an oversimplification, but, hey, I'm a simple guy. Individual differences in ability and style will seek out the best suited design. That is a long winded way of saying I concur with your 60% observation. One ski, though, that handles all conditions with the same effort and feel? I guess if the manufacturers claim to deliver, people will flock to buy.

 

post #32 of 57

I guess I'm not blessed enough to count on skiing over a foot of fresh "most of the time".  In my opinion that is where the 90+mm ski sweet spot begins.  Anything under a foot deep and I'm preferring something in the 80s. If there is nothing fresh I'm preferring something in the 60s.

post #33 of 57


are you sure that cartoon isn't from a winter edition of Playboy?

 that....'bump' looks SOOO much like a nipple

(gawd, Freud would so love to analyze me...lmao)

;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post


f89c34f7_44ea6ea1_skibag.jpg

 



 


Edited by canali - 3/25/12 at 9:06pm
post #34 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

I guess I'm not blessed enough to count on skiing over a foot of fresh "most of the time".  In my opinion that is where the 90+mm ski sweet spot begins.  Anything under a foot deep and I'm preferring something in the 80s. If there is nothing fresh I'm preferring something in the 60s.


Everyone here in the west seems to be on fat skis, even on the groomers. I have been told it is the style. My buddy who skied patrol at Crystal for many years skis 80s everywhere, even in the powder. He says he prefers to be in the powder as opposed to on top of it.

 

post #35 of 57

From the Movie Quote turned into Ski Quote thread"

 

From City Slickers, the camp fire scene. 



Phil: What do you think? What would be the perfect ski for this run?
Trekchick: Kastle MX88
Phil: No. If it was Stowe, right on the money, but this? Rossi Experience 98.
Finn: What's going on?
Trekchick: Phil can pick out the exact right ski for any condition. Go ahead. Challenge him.
Finn: Challenge him?
Phil: Go on.
Finn: Jackson Hole.
Phil: Blizzard Cochise. Don't waste my time.
[Flings pole at Finn as if he throws down the gauntlet]
Phil: Come on. Push me.
Finn: Steamboat.
Phil: Bumps?
Finn: Trees.
Phil: I'm with you.
Finn: Aspen Grove. 18" of fresh.
Phil: Nordica Patron.
PhilTrekchick: WOOF!

post #36 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

The idea of owning more than one pair is completely foreign to 75% of the skiers out there. As I have said many times here. we are not the norm, we are the lunatic fringe. 



I know I'm the lunatic fringe, yet I still have one do-it-all ski.  I'm truly an anomaly.

 

Wait, scratch that.  I picked up a pair of used 65mm wide Stockli's on the road trip to Tahoe.  I now have a quiver.  Haven't had the chance to use the second ski yet, so functionally I'm still a one-ski-quiver lunatic fringe.

post #37 of 57

the lunatic fringe is always open to new members...and we proactively encourage new memberships biggrin.gif.

 

 having multiple sets of skis is akin to having more than, say, one car, watch or motorcycle: and when buying used,

is a much cheaper hobby  esp compared to collectors of cars, (quality) watches or motorbikes...so how can you go wrong?

 

there is always someone out there wanting the ski you once loved, ready and able to start a new and fresh relationship with it,

for however long, before the buy and sell cycle begins anew.

Originally Posted by DesiredUsername View Post



I know I'm the lunatic fringe, yet I still have one do-it-all ski.  I'm truly an anomaly.

 

Wait, scratch that.  I picked up a pair of used 65mm wide Stockli's on the road trip to Tahoe.  I now have a quiver.  Haven't had the chance to use the second ski yet, so functionally I'm still a one-ski-quiver lunatic fringe.



 

post #38 of 57

As far as golf goes it is a proven fact (because I read it) that the average golfer shoots a lower score with half the clubs taken away.

 

As far as your wife goes the more skis you have the less you will use each one so the longer each one lasts so in the long run you wind up buying the same number of skis whether you do it all at once or one at a time.

 

As far as skiing goes I ski my sidestashes (108 rocker tip, cambered) on pretty much anything (I'm no more miserable in the bumps on them than I am on anything else) but I have some recons I bought very cheap for groomer days and rocks to save the sidestashes. A one ski quiver--and just about anything that's not either a racing ski or a full rocker powder ski will work as a one ski quiver for someone--is particularly nice if you fly to ski--I can say that after dragging my skis and my son's skis through several airports last week. I keep buying wider skis as my go-to ski--out here in California I find that with a wide ski I will ski sun affected and otherwise wet and heavy snow that I previously would have not bothered to ski, while I don't find myself passing on anything because my skis are too wide--so in general wider skis work in a wider range of conditions than narrower.( In California it is also very important that one not use a ski from a major manufacturer--the sidestashes obviously fail in that regard.)      

 

As far as lunatics go--check out The Gear Page and see how many guitars some of these guys own, or better yet the Telecaster Discussion page and see how many guitars ALL THE SAME MODEL these guys own. Skiers aren't even close. 

post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

 

As far as lunatics go--check out The Gear Page and see how many guitars some of these guys own, or better yet the Telecaster Discussion page and see how many guitars ALL THE SAME MODEL these guys own. Skiers aren't even close. 

 

I have 15 hand drums (djembes, ashikos, congas, doumbeks) and numerous small percussion (bells, shakers, claves,etc).  Drummers are the true gear junkies.

 

Hmmm.. gues I'm luntic frings on two fronts. 

 

 

post #40 of 57
 
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

 

As far as lunatics go--check out The Gear Page and see how many guitars some of these guys own, or better yet the Telecaster Discussion page and see how many guitars ALL THE SAME MODEL these guys own. Skiers aren't even close. 


And although I'm part of the lunatic fringe (with a ski quiver size that makes my wife cry and my house buckle at its knees), I'm also a guitar player that actually found THE guitar that pretty much ended my guitar gear G.A.S. (Gear Acquisition Syndrome for those of you that are not familiar with The Gear Page).  Of course I'm still buying amps and other processing gear, but having found a guitar that works so perfectly for me, I no longer pine away for new guitar purchases.  I have unloaded all my other guitars and I now just own 3 versions of the same model of guitar and haven't purchased a new guitar in a few years.

 

So I'm ever hopeful that in all my ski purchases, I will eventually find a ski of a particular shape, size, construction, etc. that really does do it for me on multiple fronts - so effectively, that I no longer feel the strong desire to keep acquiring skis.  I've been buying 3-5 new pairs of skis every season and I honestly want to slow down or stop the madness.

 

post #41 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesiredUsername View Post

 

I have 15 hand drums (djembes, ashikos, congas, doumbeks) and numerous small percussion (bells, shakers, claves,etc).  Drummers are the true gear junkies.

 

Hmmm.. gues I'm luntic frings on two fronts. 

 

 



Gee I only have a Quinto, Conga, Tumba, African talking drum, 2  shekkeres, a cowbel, clave sticks ...

post #42 of 57
Thread Starter 

Several answers to my initial question "Why one ski?," are beginning to take shape.

 

1. Slow the progression of the costly collection disease that afflicts gearheards.

2. Prevent hoarders from being crushed from a mountain of skis.

3. Can't afford more than one pair of skis.

4. Mobility: Thule doesn't make a 12 ski rack.

5. Can't afford a ski caddy (seems like a great business opportunity).

6. Skill set does not allow everyone to go top to bottom with finesse.

7. The concept sells skis.

8. Guitars and drums make terrible skis. Much better sleds.

9. Demand drives technology.

 

And . . . (your answers here).

post #43 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

As far as golf goes it is a proven fact (because I read it) that the average golfer shoots a lower score with half the clubs taken away...

It's true -- the average golfer can't hit anything longer than a 6 iron.  Golf ads are nearly as good as fishing lure ads in promoting revolutionary new club designs that will, in fact, do it all for you, of course.

 

For skis, there is a dose of practicality in the one-ski quest, for sure, but it's layered over with a very healthy icing of the quest for the magic bullet.  Personally I'm holding out for a ski that gives up nothing in either pure wild snow or bumps, AND in a pinch can be a perfectly servicable nymphing stick.  (Not so hard, since nymphing ain't really casting anyway, now is it? smile.gif

post #44 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by lateskier2012 View Post

Several answers to my initial question "Why one ski?," are beginning to take shape.

...

 

And . . . (your answers here).



My wife found out about this thread: she says everyone needs 2 skis, one for each foot, preferably of the same make, model, year, and length with the same bindings; anymore are superfluous (they are sitting idle somewhere) and any fewer means you are a monoskier or snowboarder (or snowshoer).  I just looked at Nordica's website for their descriptions of their Performance, Freeride, and All-Mountain skis.  Every description said "this ski is excellent for every condition on the mountain" and then adds, "but it emphasizes ...".  So if you are not an emphatic skier, all you need is one pair of skis made by a reputable manufacturer and that retails above $700 (of course, no one pays retail) and your choice should simply reflect your own personal sense of aesthetics.  That is why I bought 2011 Mantras; the graphics feature an old man with a white beard, like me!

post #45 of 57

Another advantage for wider skis occured to me today--for us older skiers the wider base means we're less likely to fall over.

post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by lateskier2012 View Post

Several answers to my initial question "Why one ski?," are beginning to take shape.

 

1. Slow the progression of the costly collection disease that afflicts gearheards.

2. Prevent hoarders from being crushed from a mountain of skis.

3. Can't afford more than one pair of skis.

4. Mobility: Thule doesn't make a 12 ski rack.

5. Can't afford a ski caddy (seems like a great business opportunity).

6. Skill set does not allow everyone to go top to bottom with finesse.

7. The concept sells skis.

8. Guitars and drums make terrible skis. Much better sleds.

9. Demand drives technology.

 

And . . . (your answers here).



Nice summary.

 

 

 

post #47 of 57

I just have one pair and that works good enough for me, but I'm a swiss army knife kinda guy. I ride Volkl Bridge 179s. They float in powder. Do others float better? Probably. They slice through crud. Do others slice better? Probably. They carve on groomers. Do others carve better? Probably. But it's really up to me to make em do all these things better and the skis get me there in a manner that's "good enough" to challenge me to do the rest.

post #48 of 57

Well, I am looking for that "One Ski" because I lost it in the powder...

post #49 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8d0wn View Post

Well, I am looking for that "One Ski" because I lost it in the powder...


I wish I could lose a ski in powder.
 

 

post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by lateskier2012 View Post


I wish I could lose a ski in powder.
 

 

It took me over 1/2 hour to find my ski in deep powder at Roger's Pass in B.C.; only time I wished I had put on powder cordssmile.gif
 

 

post #51 of 57

I recommend owning as many skis as possible.  You'll end up with some sick chairs some day.

post #52 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn Patrol View Post

I recommend owning as many skis as possible.  You'll end up with some sick chairs some day.



My wife is now making a fence of my unused/rarely used skis cool.gif

post #53 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post


Well, when a person shows up at the mountain for their first lesson and it is snowing the rental shop and ski school doesn't set them up with fatties do they?  I wouldn't recommend that intermediates opt to ride 100+ rockers on or off piste just yet either.  I haven't worked in a ski school since the advent of electricity so I don't know at what point/level of skill PSIA recommends condition specific gear.  Learn to ski well on typical skis before branching out to diverse conditions and specialized gear.  If conditions aren't amenable for beginners or intermediates stick to the groomers or call it a day of it gets too difficult there too.

 

How do instructors feel about a level 5 or 6 skier hopping on some 110s on a powder day?popcorn.gif

 


Say someone is a solid intermediate who just hasn't had much experience skiing powder. That person makes a trip to, say, Alta and is lucky enough to hit it in a storm cycle. He finds himself struggling on  his narrower, non rockered skis.

 

There is a wide range of powder skis available. Some of them (like the S7) are more forgiving than others, and may be more appropriate for getting an intermediate up to speed on skiing powder.

IMO, the instructor would be doing a disservice to not recommend trying a ski like that (and would surely be doing a disservice to recommend  that he "stick to the groomers" when he's flown west specifically to experience deep powder skiing)).

Yes, a competent powder skier can handle deep powder with any ski. But there's going to be a steeper learning curve in learning to ski powder on a narrower non-rockered ski. The student may have few opportunities in his life to ski in such conditions. By putting him in the right ski, the instructor is giving the student a better chance to become proficient in powder as quickly as possible. Thereby giving him the opportunity to spend his vacation experiencing the thrill of skiing deep powder, rather than struggling to master the old school techniques.

 

Who cares if someone considers that cheating? I consider it giving the student the best bang for his buck.

 

 

 

 

post #54 of 57


i had this very situation occur at whistler during my first 'ski espri' event for 3 days...got dumped on (35cm) and I had my narrow and stiff head imonster m77

...never had done (deep) ungroomed before, let alone being on such a relatively stiff ski (for my advanced beginner level)...so in retrospect it was nuts that the resort 

readily takes our cash but given the conditions, should have suggested we rent different skis to ensure both our safety (I ended up falling on my pole, bruising my rib)

and more enjoyment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DropKickMurphy View Post


Say someone is a solid intermediate who just hasn't had much experience skiing powder. That person makes a trip to, say, Alta and is lucky enough to hit it in a storm cycle. He finds himself struggling on  his narrower, non rockered skis.

 

There is a wide range of powder skis available. Some of them (like the S7) are more forgiving than others, and may be more appropriate for getting an intermediate up to speed on skiing powder.

IMO, the instructor would be doing a disservice to not recommend trying a ski like that (and would surely be doing a disservice to recommend  that he "stick to the groomers" when he's flown west specifically to experience deep powder skiing)).

Yes, a competent powder skier can handle deep powder with any ski. But there's going to be a steeper learning curve in learning to ski powder on a narrower non-rockered ski. The student may have few opportunities in his life to ski in such conditions. By putting him in the right ski, the instructor is giving the student a better chance to become proficient in powder as quickly as possible. Thereby giving him the opportunity to spend his vacation experiencing the thrill of skiing deep powder, rather than struggling to master the old school techniques.

 

Who cares if someone considers that cheating? I consider it giving the student the best bang for his buck.

 

 

 

 



 

post #55 of 57

I wouldn't put an intermediate on a full rockered ski but there are a lot of 100-110mm tip rockered, cambered skis that would make powder a lot easier for him without being too different from the ski they are used to. 

post #56 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

I wouldn't put an intermediate on a full rockered ski but there are a lot of 100-110mm tip rockered, cambered skis that would make powder a lot easier for him without being too different from the ski they are used to. 


I'm just a beginner alpine skier, about 14 days total lift-served on alpine gear, 3 days on 184-cm R:EX with Fritschi Freerides and 11 days on 191-cm 2011 Volkl Mantras with Marker Squires, and my wife said, after skiing some black diamond off-piste powder in the trees "This is really fun!  I want to do more of this!"  so I just bought 188-cm Rossignol S7s.  My one-ski alpine quiver is now 2 skis.

 

post #57 of 57

Just put my first day on the 2012 188-cm S7s: hard frozen corduroy in the morning; 2-6 inches of 1-2-3 day old powder in the trees, with old tracks underneath; around 6 inches of new/spindrift powder over lots of old tracks and quite a few new tracks off the high ridge.  Great ski. Compared to my 191 2011 Mantras: Both very stable underfoot and confidence inspiring; the S7 more so. Very quick and sure in the tight trees and on the bumps, seemingly light swing weight; Mantras a little unwieldly in the very tight trees and steeper bumps, with heavy swing weight.  Unperturbed by softer cutup snows, but can be deflected by hard frozen old tracks and crud; Mantras are unperturbable, but seem to transmit shock to the knees more.  Kind of sliding/smearing on the groomed, leaving new moon-quarter moon patterns in the snow with lots of grating sounds; Mantras carve in all conditions.  A little tough on the knees to keep on edge compared to the Mantras.  If I was to choose one as an all ski quiver, I'd choose the Mantra.  As it is, the Mantra with be my firm-hard/old snow ski (with versatility) and my S7s will be my soft snow/new snow ski (with versatility).

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Looking for the "ONE SKI." Really? Why?